Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We have multiple independent testimonies for the resurrection (+ an empty tomb) this includes testimonies form skeptics, non believers, and even groups of people.

We don't have an empty tomb. What we have is words about an empty tomb. Even if we had such a tomb, we have no way of establishing that it represents a resurrection. Word alone are not sufficient evidence to believe in either gods or resurrections.

This makes “hallucinations” an unlikely and insufficient explanation. …..Unlikely because it´s unlikely (nearly impossible) for multiple people to have the same hallucination at the same time. And insufficient because hallucinations would not explain the empty tomb nor the belief in the resurrection.

From Mass hallucination. "A mass hallucination is a phenomenon in which a large group of people, usually in physical proximity to each other, all experience the same hallucination simultaneously. Mass hallucination is a common explanation for mass UFO sightings, appearances of the Virgin Mary, and other paranormal phenomena. In most cases, mass hallucination refers to a combination of suggestion and pareidolia, wherein one person will see, or pretend to see, something unusual (like the face of Jesus in the burn-marks on a tortilla, or the face of a kidnapped girl on a blank billboard) and point it out to other people. Having been told what to look for, those other people will consciously or unconsciously convince themselves to recognize the apparition, and will in turn point it out to others."

The empty tomb needs no explanation. And hallucination is not needed for those not present to believe. The Gospel writers weren't present, so they cannot be said to have hallucinated an event they did not see. They simply believed what they were told, like all believers since including those living today.

As for the resurrection well if God exist then miracles and resurrection would not be “very unlikely”

Even if a deity exists, we can say that it is very unlikely that it raises our dead based on the number of biological deaths followed by a resurrection compared to the number that did not.

Even if we assume agnosticism (perhaps God exist perhaps not 50% probability) the resurrection seems to be the best explanation.

Not to me. Any naturalistic explanation is more likely than any supernaturalistic one simply because we have countless examples of the former and none of the latter.

As an analogy if I tell you that an Alien kidnaped my neighbor you will probably conclude that I am crazy or lying. But if there are multiple testimonies claiming the same thing, my neighbor is truly missing, and if I and other witnesses are being persecuted by religious groups for making “alien claims” …. Then you would probably consider the possibility that my neighbor was truly kidnapped by an alien.

I would consider the possibility from the beginning, but wouldn't believe it without more evidence than testimony.

If you made that claim, based on what I know about you from your posting, I wouldn't consider crazy or lying most likely. Your belief in resurrection seems even more tenuous than a belief in alien abduction, but I consider you neither crazy nor lying. I just see you as somebody willing to believe without the evidence it would take to convince critical thinkers, that is, people who don't believe without compelling evidence.

I agree that as the number of people agreeing with you goes up, the believability of the claim goes up as well, but never to the level of justifiable belief. In fact, I have no reason to believe that there has ever been an extraterrestrial visit to correlate with any reports of UFO. Remember, I'm not saying that it didn't happen, just that there is insufficient reason to believe that it did if it did.

This has been a very successful epistemology for mankind and me personally. This kind of thinking resulted in man discarding astrology, alchemy, blood letting (to restore balance in fictional humors), and creationism with astronomy, chemistry, medicine, and Big bang cosmology (physical evolution) and biological evolution. In each case, a wrong belief that generated nothing of value was replaced with a correct one that did. That's a pretty strong recommendation for this manner of deciding what's true about the world - empiricism. And that's been my approach for 35 years, since leaving Christianity, where I did believe ideas with insufficient support that were just as sterile as astrology.

Pleasant discussion, thanks.

 

[leroy]

Are you not aware that you can go to a museum and see the fossilized remains of a stegosaurus? You don't have to rely on anyone's say-so.

How would I know if the fossils are authentic and not frauds? How would I know that there are no other explanations for how the “bone-like” things got there?

 

[Nimos]

However, a logical person would have to ask why most people in the world would believe in a nonexistent thing. To say that all these believers are all crazy is not a reasoned response. There has to be a reason why so many people believe in God and I think it is because there is evidence for God.

I agree, believing in God doesn't make one crazy, we all believe in things, which in many cases we can't confirm or know for certain or simply things that we wish were true/untrue.

But also one have to be aware of that not everyone believe in the same way or even the same kind of God(s), some are fundamentalists and will go all the way so to speak, and some are very casual believers and might not care to much about what exactly God is, besides a supreme being. And I think for many people this is obviously the best explanation of how everything ultimately came into being and have no issue or concerns with science and whatever it say. It doesn't influence their believe in God the slightest.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How would I know if the fossils are authentic and not frauds? How would I know that there are no other explanations for how the “bone-like” things got there?

You would have to investigate them.

But to say that all we have when it comes to stegosauruses is testimony, stories and anecdotes, is just flat out wrong.

 

[leroy]

I already have, you just ignored it, if you haven't the integrity to honestly address what I posted, why would I bother typing it all out again.

<LINK>

"

If you read on from there, it actually addresses and critiques the theistic FT argument, which is of course a distinct or separate argument from the scientific one, since the former is a biased assumption, as I said. It isn't even philosophically sound either, as the vast majority of the universe is entirely hostile to life.

Evidence
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Does the article represent your view? Do you (in general terms) agree with the article?

As side note, isn’t it strange that an argument based on “just assertions” is actually being addressed in a peer reviewed source? Isn’t it strange that a religious biased and faith based argument is being taken seriously by the scientific community?

Or perhaps you are wrong and the argument is not as “stupid” as you seemed to be implying in your previous comments.

Evidence
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

That definition doesn’t allow us to tell evidence from “non-evidence”

"First, there is an underlying assumption in the FTA to the effect that the ‘constants’ of Nature as well as the initial conditions of the Universe (to both of which the emergence of life is allegedly exquisitely sensitive) are similarly variable. This may or may not be the case; the present state of science is not advanced enough to decide between chance and necessity concerning the laws of nature and the beginning of the Universe

I would argue that the FT doesn’t require that assumption. The only relevant assumption that the argument makes is that it is logically possible to have other values,{(which seems to be a valid assumption) but the arguments doesn’t require the assumption that other values are “scientifically” possible.

 

[Sheldon]

We have multiple independent testimonies for the resurrection (+ an empty tomb) this includes testimonies form skeptics, non believers, and even groups of people.

No you don't, you have a book making claims for it long after the fact, no contemporary witnesses have written a single word about it, and the authorship is unknown. It is the flimsiest evidence imaginable, and for a claim that extraordinary, and from a period of ignorance and superstition.

 

[Sheldon]

This makes “hallucinations” an unlikely and insufficient explanation.

We know hallucinations are possible as an objective fact, we have no such evidence for resurrections, so to claim the former is less likely than the latter is risible.

hallucinations would not explain the empty tomb nor the belief in the resurrection.

We don't know there was any empty tomb, all we have is third hand hearsay. However lets say there was one, lets say we have no explanation, this doesn't represent rational evidence for anything supernatural. Your edging ever closer to an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Lies are also unlikely ,

Nonsense, the early church indulged lies and chicanery on a massive scale, the buying of indulgences, and the selling of relics, dear oh dear, go to Lourdes, or tune into a televangelist channel, religions lie, relentlessly.

early Christians where persecuted and died in the name of the resurrection, (this means that they were not trying to fool anyone, they honestly believed in the resurrection) besides this wouldn’t explain the empty tomb ether.

What has this to do with First Council of Nicaea, and the bible they cobbled together? You're making wild assumptions, and massive tenuous leaps here.

As for the resurrection well if God exist then miracles and resurrection would not be “very unlikely”

If Harry Potter were real wizardry would be "very likely" are you saying this is evidence for wizardry? Sorry but this is very poor reasoning.

Even if we assume agnosticism (perhaps God exist perhaps not 50% probability) the resurrection seems to be the best explanation.

I suppose it was only a matter of time before fake stats entered the rationale, and a resurrection is the least likely explanation one can imagine, since lies, hallucinations, chicanery, ignorance superstition to name a few, are manifestly and objectively possible, whereas we have no objective evidence supernatural resurrections are possible.

So it seems to me that resurrections are very unlikely (less likely than hallucinations or lies)only if the existence of God is unlikely.

Subjective hearsay.

The point that I am making is that even if you are an agnostic, the resurrection is the best explanation.

No it definitely isn't, since if you are an agnostic you don't believe any explanation is possible, by definition, however agnostics aside you might want to look up Occam's razor, and fully understand what it means for your continued and unevidenced assertions that explanations we not only know are possible, but are commonplace events, especially among religions, are less probable than supernatural ones that have never once been objectively evidenced.

And if something is the “best explanation” then it qualifies as “compelling evidence”

It's not any kind of explanation, it explains nothing, it has no explanatory powers whatsoever. Oh look someone has written that someone else said that a tomb mysteriously turned up empty.

We don't know who wrote it, we don't know who is supposed to have made the claim, or if anyone did, we do know not one word of this was written until decades after the fact. It is a bare unevidenced claim, from unknown authors, and doesn't explain anything at all, just makes the claim.

Please let me know your thought on this.

I don't believe it is any more compellingly real than Lord of The Rings, and we know who wrote that.

As an analogy if I tell you that an Alien kidnaped my neighbor you will probably conclude that I am crazy or lying.

Nope, I need not draw any conclusion, there is no objective evidence at all, just a bare subjective assertions, thus I would disbelieve the claim.

But if there are multiple testimonies claiming the same thing, my neighbor is truly missing, and if I and other witnesses are being persecuted by religious groups for making “alien claims” …. Then you would probably consider the possibility that my neighbor was truly kidnapped by an alien.

I certainly would not, as I know what an argumentum ad populum fallacy is.

The resurrection claims would be analogous to that

I agree, unevidenced hearsay, but from unknown authorship.

 

[Sheldon]

It is not really evidence but it is a strong indication that there is a God because all these people do not believe in God based upon no evidence. I mean they did not just up and say "gee I think I will believe in God." There is a reason that most people believe in God and it is because there is evidence for God that comes through religions.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy, and if there is compelling evidence why is it never ever presented? Or when it is it turns out to be subjective anecdotal claims?

 

[Sheldon]

as atheists would have us think.
But it is illogical that 93% of people in the world who believe in God are all crazy, because if they were the world could not function at all.

Straw man fallacy, tell us again how you have a good grasp of logic.

 

[Sheldon]

Isn’t it strange that a religious biased and faith based argument is being taken seriously by the scientific community?

It's not, why do you think you can make obviously false sweeping assertions like that? If you want to see if there is a scientific consensus that a deity exists, all you would have to do is flick on any news channel. Or look at how much higher atheism is among scientists in general, and even more so among elite scientists.

That definition doesn’t allow us to tell evidence from “non-evidence”

It defines evidence, which was what you asked for, if you want me to tell you whether I find a specific piece of evidence compelling, present it and I will take a look.

I would argue that the FT doesn’t require that assumption.

Of course you would, you favour the assumption. I however would require something more than unevidenced assumption.

 

[Sheldon]

How would I know if the fossils are authentic and not frauds?

How fossils are authenticated.

I already posited this once for you and not only did you ignore it, you keep repeating the question, from now I will post that link each time.

 

[Trailblazer]

Argumentum ad populum fallacy

Nope, because I did not say or even imply that God exists because many or most people believe that God exists.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

and if there is compelling evidence why is it never ever presented?

It has been presented numerous times.

 

[Trailblazer]

Straw man fallacy, tell us again how you have a good grasp of logic.

That is no straw man.
Many atheists claim that the 93% of people in the world who believe in God are all crazy.

It is patently illogical to say they 93% of people in the world who are believers are ALL CRAZY as atheists claim that believers are.

If 93% of people in the world who were crazy the world could not function at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In my experience Internet atheist usually don't even have a "bar" they dont even know what would qualify as evidence .

If your bar is set so low that two contradictory claims both clear it, it's too low.

 

[leroy]

If your bar is set so low that two contradictory claims both clear it, it's too low.

Can you quote any contradictory claim made by me?

 

[leroy]

How fossils are authenticated.

I already posited this once for you and not only did you ignore it, you keep repeating the question, from now I will post that link each time.

How do you know that the guys in the musseum or someone else) used this methods to identy the fossil?

 

[leroy]

It's

Of course you would, you favour the assumption. I however would require something more than unevidenced assumption.

Your inability to follow conversations is perplexing.


1 you presented an objection to the FT argument/that the argument makes an assumption

2 I replied by saying that the "assumption " is not necessary for the argument (the argument woukd still work even if you dont make such assumption)

...
So it is your turn to reply under those lines , you are expected to refute my rebuttal or to admit that I succeeded in responding

 

[leroy]

Lies are also unlikely ,

Nonsense, the early church indulged lies and chicanery on a massive scale, the buying of indulgences, and the selling of relics, dear oh dear, go to Lourdes, or tune into a televangelist channel, religions lie, relentlessly.
.

What are you talking about? If you are going to quote my arguments you are expected to respond to suchh argument.

It's annoying when you quote my comments only to make a rabdom and irrelevant claim.


The particular claim that I made is that it is unlikely (nearly impossible) for someone to die for a lie that he himself invented.

So ether agree or refute the argument , this has nothibg to do with indulgences relics nor anything like that.

 

[leroy]

No you don't, you have a book making claims for it long after the fact, no contemporary witnesses have written a single word about it, and the authorship is unknown. It is the flimsiest evidence imaginable, and for a claim that extraordinary, and from a period of ignorance and superstition.

Paul is a contemporaey source.

So are you willing to admit that you are wrong and that we do have atleast 1 contemporary source?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you quote any contradictory claim made by me?

I'm not talking about claims made by you; I'm talking about any claim that has been - or could be - made by anyone.

For instance, you're a monotheist, right? Assuming you are, the existence of any god besides the one god you believe in would be incompatible with your belief system.

... so if you set your standard of evidence for a god wherever you like, someone else could take that standard and apply it to some other god who you argue doesn't exist. If the case for the existence of that god also clears your standard, then it's demonstrably too low.

Once the bar is raised to the point that only one exclusionary belief system passes it, we can have reasonable differences of opinion about where the bar ought to be, but I've never seen the bar for any religious belief system get anywhere near that point.

I've also never seen any indication that Christianity would be the one religion that would clear the bar if it were set high enough that only one religion cleared it.

Take miracle claims. The best-supported miracle claim that I've ever seen was the Ganesha milk "miracle": lots of independent observations all over the world, including lots of independent video... I've never seen a Christian miracle claim that even comes close to that claim in terms of establishing that the purported miracle ever happened.

... so unless you have evidence of that quality or better - i.e. many independent accounts and reliable, clear video or something even more compelling - for whatever claims you're selling, your miracle claim has no hope of winning against that.